The down-playing of the extent and nature of quartz use in prehistoric Ireland stems primarily from the relationship between the physical properties of quartz and the history of archaeological research discussed above. Ballin (2008), reviewing approaches to quartz, commented that 'many publications of Scottish quartz assemblages, as well as quartz reports world-wide, tend to be characterised by a lack of enthusiasm, detail and precision'. The difficulties with quartz are compounded by the common occurrence of quartz deposits in most of Ireland. Consequently, quartz can be difficult to identify during fieldwalking and quartz lithics are probably under-represented in such collections (cf. Kimball 2000), and during excavations they are also often missed (Warren and Neighbour 2004). This is perhaps especially significant in a context where, for non-specialists, lithics are all too often equated with flint, and many excavators have not been trained in the recognition of 'flint alternatives' or how to deal with them: the recovery of worked quartz on many sites is very unsystematic. Moreover, too many people continue to equate 'tools' with formal retouched artefacts and downplay the analytical significance of the rest – the 'waste': as retouch is very difficult to identity on quartz, this bias further limits the recovery of quartz. In parallel with other areas worldwide (e.g. Gramly 1981; Holm and Knutsson 1998), the neglecting of quartz-focused research in Ireland is leading to a systematic misunderstanding of the nature and extent of prehistoric activity in large parts of the island. This project aims to offer a coherent framework for analysing quartz assemblages, and further our understanding of lithic traditions in Ireland.
© Internet Archaeology/Author(s) URL: http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue26/12/4.html
Last updated: Wed Jun 10 2009